FULABAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Shri U. Maheshwari for the appellants. Shri S.M. Jain, Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent No. 1. Shri A.K. Khan for respondent No. 2. Shri B.K. Gupta for other respondents. All of them have been heard. Shri Meheswari has placed reliance on Section 35 of Civil Procedure Code and the notification of M.P. Government issued in that context dated 1.4.1983 bearing No. F-9- 1-83-B-X and submitted that in view of this notification, the trial court should have permitted the appellants to sue as indigent persons. Further he submitted that the conclusion drawn by the trial court in refusing the permission to sue appellants as indigent person is based on incorrect assumptions. He submitted that the appellants own a hut which could be hardly of Rs. 10,000/- worth and the value of bed, utensils would not be worth enabling him to pay the court fees in respect of the suit brought by them. He further argued that the trial court has held that the appellant No. 2 Chaganlal can take loan from his General Provident Fund for the purpose of paying the court fees.

(2.) Shri Meheswari further argued that learned trial court has also committed error in concluding that the appellants should sell out the said hut and utensils for the purpose of paying court fee. In this context he argued that if they sell the hurt which is their residential place and if they sell their utensils, they would be totally on the road deprived of any source of livelihood.

(3.) Shri S.M: Jain, appearing for respondent No. 1 argued that the impugned order is correct, proper and legal because the appellants are having sufficient property to enable them to pay the court fees,